Albert Bandura Quotes

Psychology cannot tell people how they ought to live their lives. It can however, provide them with the means for effecting personal and social change.

People’s beliefs about their abilities have a profound effect on those abilities.

Our ability to selectively engage and disengage our moral standards . . . helps explain how people can be barbarically cruel in one moment and compassionate the next. —Albert Bandura20

The human mind is generative, creative, proactive, and reflective -- not just reactive.

Where everyone is responsible, no one is really responsible.

It requires conducive social conditions, rather than monstrous people, to produce heinous deeds.

What is immoral to do is immoral to threaten.

It requires a strong sense of responsibility to be a good functionary. In situations involving obedience to authority, people carry out orders partly to honor the obligations they have undertaken. One must, therefore, distinguish between two levels of responsibility—duty to one's superiors, and accountability for the effects of one's actions.

Albert Bandura, a Stanford psychologist who has done much of the research on self-efficacy, sums it up well: “People’s beliefs about their abilities have a profound effect on those abilities. Ability is not a fixed property; there is a huge variability in how you perform. People who have a sense of self-efficacy bounce back from failures; they approach things in terms of how to handle them rather than worrying about what can go wrong.”24

I think I can, I think I can!” Another word for that mind-set is “self-efficacy,” a central concept within the field of human psychology developed in the 1970s by eminent psychologist Albert Bandura. Self-efficacy means having the belief in your abilities to complete a task, reach goals, and manage a situation.2 It means believing in your abilities—not in your parents’ abilities to help you do those things or to do them for you.

Analyses of moral disengagement mechanisms usually draw heavily on examples from military and political violence. This tends to convey the impression that selective disengagement of self-sanctions occurs only under extraordinary circumstances. The truth is quite the contrary. Such mechanisms operate in everyday situations in which decent people routinely perform activities having injurious human effects, to further their own interests or for profit.

Authorities usually invite and support detrimental conduct in insidious ways that minimize personal responsibility for what is happening. Moreover, the intended purpose of sanctioned destructiveness is usually disguised so that neither issuers nor perpetrators regard their actions as censurable. When reprehensible practices are publicized, they are officially dismissed as only isolated incidents arising through misunderstanding of what had, in fact, been authorized. Efforts are made to limit any blame to subordinates, who are portrayed as misguided or overzealous. Investigators who go searching for "smoking guns" display naivete about the surreptitious manner in which culpable behavior is sanctioned and executed. Generally one finds mazy devices of nonresponsibility rather than smoking guns.

In the social learning view, people are neither driven by inner forces nor buffeted by environmental stimuli. Rather, psychological functioning is explained in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction of personal and environmental determinants.

Individuals can set their own standards for behavior and performance, and these personal standards can play a major role in determining their actual achievements.

It has been clear since Albert Bandura’s development of social cognitive theory in the early 1960s

In 1959, Harvard University psychologist Robert W. White took a step toward connecting file folders with evolution. In a paper that has been cited more than ten thousand times, White described our “intrinsic need to deal with our environments”—not just for survival but to avoid feeling helpless. White defined his key idea with one word, competence, meaning how well we feel we are dealing with our world. In 1977, the Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura extended White’s idea, concluding that one way we meet our intrinsic need to feel competent is by successful completion of tasks. Our biological need to deal with our world is also why it feels good to check items off of a list (and to complete yet another draft of a paper).

Social Cognitive Theory, as proposed by Albert Bandura, highlights the importance of modelling and observational learning in transformative teaching, emphasizing the role of social interactions and peer influences in shaping students' behaviours and attitudes towards learning.

With every post, tweet, or pin, users anticipate social validation. Rewards of the tribe keep users coming back, wanting more. Sites that leverage tribal rewards benefit from what psychologist Albert Bandura called “social learning theory.”[lxxvi] Bandura studied the power of modeling and ascribed special powers to our ability to learn from others. In particular, Bandura showed that people who observe someone being rewarded for a particular behavior are more likely to alter their own beliefs and subsequent actions. Notably, Bandura also showed that this technique works particularly well when people observe the behavior of people most like themselves, or those who are slightly more experienced (and, therefore, role models).[lxxvii] This is exactly the kind of targeted demographic and interest-level segmentation that social media companies such as Facebook and industry-specific sites such as Stack Overflow selectively apply.

According to Stanford University psychology professor Albert Bandura, this power comprises four properties that help us achieve our goals. The first is intention. We can imagine a better reality than the one we’re currently experiencing. And we can work with others and within our circumstances to achieve it. Second, forethought. By visualizing the future, we can govern our behavior in the present and give purpose and meaning to our actions. Third, action. We have the ability to act on our plans, to stay motivated, and to respond in the moment to remain on course. Finally, self-reflection. We not only act, we know we act. That means we can evaluate how we’re doing, make adjustments, and even revise our plans.4